D.o.F:24/09/2011
D.o.O:30/1/2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.240/11
Dated this, the 30th day of January 2012
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
M.A.Moidu, S/o Abdulla,
R/in Mardali House, Muttathody PO, : Complainant
Kasaragod.(in person)
The Manager, Pace Motors,
Adkathbail,Kasaragod : Opposite party
(Adv.Madhavan Malankad,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
The gist of the complaint is as follows:
Complainant booked a Honda Activa two wheeler on 30/12/10 by paying `100/-. At that time opposite party given a specific undertaking that the vehicle will be delivered within 6 months. But it was not delivered as assured. On 22/8/11 opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle is ready for delivery and asked the complainant to pay the purchase price of the vehicle. Accordingly complainant paid ` 51085/- towards the balance purchase price. At the time of accepting the amount opposite party assured that the vehicle will be delivered within 3 days . But it was not delivered as promised and opposite party prolonged the matter stating lame excuses. Finally on 16/9/11 opposite party called the complainant and asked him to take delivery of the vehicle. But when the complainant approached the opposite party they sought 2 more days for delivery of the vehicle. Therefore the complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
2. According to opposite party complainant booked the vehicle on 30/12/10 but it is not true that they promised delivery within 6 months. Complainant remitted the balance consideration on 23/8/11 but no promise was made that vehicle will be delivered within 3 days. The complainant was asked to report on 16/ 9 /11 but it is not correct that the vehicle was not delivered on that day citing reasons as busy or that in spite of presence of complainant on that day he was asked to come after 2 days. Complainant came to the dealer on 16/9/11 at around 12.45 noon by that time there was no time for finalizing the delivery papers and to submit the sale for payment of tax with the RTO before 1 p.m . Hence actual delivery of the vehicle was made on 17/9/11. Complainant has suppressed the fact that the delivery of the vehicle was given on 17/9/11. Complainant proceeds on the basis that he has not received the vehicle. Opposite party has not entered any unfair trade practice and the complainant has not sustained any financial loss
3. Both the counsels heard. Both the parties did not adduce any oral evidence. The documents produced by either side is perused. The documents produced by the complainant did not show that opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within 6 months as alleged by the complaint. In the absence of any evidence to prove that opposite parties assured to deliver the vehicle within 6 months from the date of booking, we are unable to hold that there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in delivering the vehicle. Moreover, the complainant has no case that opposite party has delivered vehicle over looking his priority of booking.
Therefore the complaint fails hence it is dismissed without any order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
